Skip to main content

The Unfairness of Concentrated Wealth is NOTHING Compared to the Unfairness of Redistributing It


Socialist types like to accuse rich corporate types of having “too much” wealth. Simple fairness, they claim, dictates that one person should not have so much when so many have so little. But if we’re going to talk about fairness, let’s really give it fair consideration. That means looking beyond the petty jealousy and thinking about the fairness of seizing wealth from those who earned it and giving it to those who did not.  


How did the wealthy get that way? The socialist types claim that the greedy capitalists exploit their workers and their consumers. Is that true? Let’s start with the workers. Jeff Bezos may be greedy. I wouldn’t know, I’ve never met him. But I did work for him - in fact I hired other people to work for him. So I can say with reasonable certainty that he hasn’t created his enormous wealth by exploiting his workers. They were all there voluntarily. 


Before attending law school, I spent several months working for the temp agency that hires seasonal workers for Amazon warehouses. I saw a lot of people thrilled to get a job, but you know what I didn’t see? Anyone being dragged to my office by the Agents of Amazon, bound to a chair, and told they had no choice but to work. I didn’t see anyone forced to work against their will. What I did see was relieved faces when people learned they had just gotten a job. For some it was a chance to earn a little extra money to pay for Christmas presents. For others it was a fresh start. A few were there at the insistence of a parent or significant other, and were less sanguine about the prospects of spending 12 hours packing boxes in a warehouse. I don’t blame them. But it certainly beats sitting at home hoping someone will come along and solve your problems for you. Working a job - even as an Amazon warehouse packer - beats searching for a job. 


So if Bezos isn’t exploiting the worker (since the worker is there voluntarily), he must exploit his customers, right? Why do people buy from Amazon? I don’t want this to sound like an ad for Amazon, as I have some serious concerns about the way they dominate the market, and about their open acceptance of corporate welfare. But it’s no surprise they have amassed a loyal following. They tend to have low prices. Perhaps someone else offers a single item for a lower price, but overall, if you purchase the bulk of your goods from Amazon, you’ll probably spend less than if you bought from any other single source. 


Price is important, but you also want to make sure you’re getting the right product. Amazon has reviews on almost every product they sell. It’s pretty easy to judge quality. Speaking of products, Amazon has them all. With few exceptions it’s difficult to find a product category that Amazon doesn’t carry. Finally, Amazon is easy. It’s easy to find what you’re looking for, and you don’t even have to leave your house. Amazon has always catered to shut-ins. It’s 2020; we’ve created an excess of shut-ins. 


Given all these appealing aspects, is it any wonder Amazon is making money hand over fist? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been visited by the Agents of Amazon, demanding that I click “buy” or see my house mysteriously go up in flames. 


If Bezos doesn’t exploit workers, and he doesn’t exploit consumers, how did he amass such a great wealth? He created it, by providing value to his customers. Somewhere along the line, people decided that the ease and convenience of using Amazon outweighed whatever practical or moral compunctions they had about giving their money to someone who had all the hallmarks of becoming a billionaire. That is, people let their self-interest guide their purchasing decisions. 


So, let’s reconsider the fairness of redistributing Bezos’ great wealth. He created a company. He hired workers who chose to do the job and take the pay that was offered, without a gun to their head or the threat of being put in jail. He offered goods to customers in a competitive market. They chose to buy from him. Without a gun to their head or the threat of being put in jail. If you can point to someone who got rich through deception or corrupt manipulation of government, then you might have an argument for redistributing some portion of their wealth. 1889 is vehemently opposed to any kind of corporate welfare or favoritism. But certain elements of society want to send agents of the government to Bezos’ house — simply because he is wealthy — demand that he hand over the bulk of his wealth, or be put in jail. If he refuses, these agents will use their guns to persuade him. The wealth will then be given to people based on how little they have - that is, how little value they have created for others. Tell me, what’s fair about that?


Mike Davis is a Research Fellow at 1889 Institute. He can be reached at mdavis@1889institute.org. 


The opinions expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of 1889 Institute.

Popular posts from this blog

Dear GT Bynum, Let the Children Play

I live close to a large City of Tulsa park that has a golf course, walking trail, green spaces, and a couple of playgrounds. My (almost) three-year old son loves the playgrounds, and often begs us during walks in our neighborhood to detour to “for-chun” (LaFortune Park). This seemingly innocent request can become a hassle when we don’t really have time, but we indulge him as much as possible. It’s good for kids to play outside, especially with other kids they might not otherwise come into contact with. But sometimes we have to contend with an upset toddler who doesn’t understand why we can’t go to the playground right this minute. I’m not complaining, every parent of young kids deals with similar stuff. But during the COVID lockdown, we’ve had to contend with an altogether different LaFortune Park situation with our son. As part of the mayor’s shelter-in-place overkill, all city-owned playgrounds were closed “ indefinitely .” This wasn’t a guideline or suggestion, the city meant busine

When It Comes to the Cox Center, “What if I Get to Meet a Movie Star?” Isn’t Good Enough

In a recent   post , 1889 Institute expounded on the fiduciary duty of elected officials “to act in the best interest of the people of the state as a whole,” a “high duty, executed as a public trust … wherein one puts the people’s interest above one’s own.” This fiduciary duty must not stop with elected officials. Once an elected body or an elected official – the legislature, a city council, the governor, or a mayor – has taken final action, the faithful implementation of each enacted law, policy, or program falls to an army of bureaucrats. Thus, a fiduciary duty to execute laws and policies with diligence and integrity, tantamount to that of elected officials, must extend to government employees. Recently, I had a few moments to sit down and watch a show with my children. Unsurprisingly, my son picked a series entitled “The Stinky and Dirty Show.” I was naturally skeptical that the show would yield any real value. However, as I watched, I found myself pleasantly surprised. Each episod

COVID Inspires Tyranny for the "Good" of Its Victims

The Christian philosopher, C.S. Lewis, once said, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies." The moral busybodies C.S Lewis warns of reminds me of those who would have Americans give up their liberty to combat COVID-19.   A recent Oklahoman op-ed compared COVID-19 to World War II, stating that the number of deaths from COVID-19 is approaching the number that died fighting for this country and the freedoms it protects. This comparison is, of course, nonsense. This suggests that a virus with a high survivability rate is an equivalent threat to the Nazi and Japanese regimes that brutally murdered millions. The piece uses wartime rationing of meat and cheese, a sacrifice necessary to ensure men on the front lines had adequate nutrition, to justify Americans accepting counterproductive lockdowns in exchange for additional stimulus c

The High Duty of Elected Officials and Ways They Fall Short

With an election just completed (the alleged voting, anyway), a legislative session coming up, constant talk of spending to offset the impacts of COVID-19, and elected officials trying to mandate our way out of a disease, the duty of elected officials in their official positions is worth considering. The 1889 Institute recently published a booklet for state lawmakers that discusses various issues and possible solutions. Included in that booklet is a short discussion of the central duty of elected officials, which is expanded here. What is the central, over-arching duty of an individual after having been elected to public office? Public oaths of office give a strong hint, and the Oklahoma Constitution is a good place to start. Article XV includes the oath of office, which states that an Oklahoma public official swears to “support, obey, and defend” the constitutions of the nation and the state, that the official will not take bribes, and that the official will discharge duties as best